Cowboyz Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 the lowly, romo-less, 6-10 cowboys beat more teams with winning records than the 10-6 gints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 the lowly, romo-less, 6-10 cowboys beat more teams with winning records than the 10-6 gints. The other side of the coin is they lost 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 whatever makes you feel better about being 6-10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Now thats a badegg comment if I ever saw one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 when life gives you lemons...... i'm not surprised you guys don't like this thread. it's very telling of how good the gints actually were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BronxRik Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Whether you beat the 18-0 Patriots by just 1 point, or the lowly 0-16 Lions by 100 points, a win is a win and wins are what build a winning record (except for the Seahawks). You can beat every top team in the NFL, and lose to lesser teams and end up..........oh yeah.....like the Cowboys did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 Whether you beat the 18-0 Patriots by just 1 point, or the lowly 0-16 Lions by 100 points, a win is a win and wins are what build a winning record (except for the Seahawks). You can beat every top team in the NFL, and lose to lesser teams and end up..........oh yeah.....like the Cowboys did. puff out that chest and make it sound like your team did something last year. 6-10 or 10-6. we were in the same boat at year's end, were we not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 puff out that chest and make it sound like your team did something last year. 6-10 or 10-6. we were in the same boat at year's end, were we not? Yes we were. So that means all we have to talk about is who did better up until the playoffs. I think that speaks for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 Yes we were. So that means all we have to talk about is who did better up until the playoffs. I think that speaks for itself. or who did better vs heavier competition that we both faced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 or who did better vs heavier competition that we both faced. The Bears beat you, we destroyed the Bears......(at least thier QB's)....lol They were a playoff team, or does that not count in your book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 The Bears beat you, we destroyed the Bears......(at least thier QB's)....lol They were a playoff team, or does that not count in your book? yep you played them when they were still struggling to learn martz's offense, and they got us during an implosion who else you got? oh yeah that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 yep you played them when they were still struggling to learn martz's offense, and they got us during an implosion who else you got? oh yeah that's it. You played them in week 2! WITH Romo! lol If they were struggling to learn in week 4, then they were even worse in week 2. Hmmmm, let me see. I could throw SEA in there. Yes, a losing record, but they made the playoffs and beat a powerful Saints team. We DESTROYED them. And you lost to the Skins........ Sorry, that one was because it was so funny. The Skins....lol I think a High School team beat em. C'mon cowboyz, its much more admirable to beat losing teams and lose to powerhouses than it is to lose to losing teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 You played them in week 2! WITH Romo! lol If they were struggling to learn in week 4, then they were even worse in week 2. Hmmmm, let me see. I could throw SEA in there. Yes, a losing record, but they made the playoffs and beat a powerful Saints team. We DESTROYED them. And you lost to the Skins........ Sorry, that one was because it was so funny. The Skins....lol I think a High School team beat em. C'mon cowboyz, its much more admirable to beat losing teams and lose to powerhouses than it is to lose to losing teams. the dog is not so sure about that...unless beating the lesser teams gets you into the playoffs. the reason being, if you consistently beat the better teams but lose to lesser teams, it is indicative of playing down to the competition, which is most likely indicative of a coaching issue. In this case, the coach was replaced and there was a marked improvement (debatable as to whether or not that will sustain in the future, but promising none the less). If you beat up on the lesser teams and lose to the better ones, that is indicative of a team that is stuck in the middle of the pack. better than bad, worse than good. That being said, there are so many factors involved (injuries, youth...etc...) that it is hard to judge two teams based on this. In either case, both teams can build on it in the future. the dog just thinks a team that beat the better competition over the year may have a slight edge in making a jump the next year...but, in the NFL, things seem to change yearly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 the dog is not so sure about that...unless beating the lesser teams gets you into the playoffs. the reason being, if you consistently beat the better teams but lose to lesser teams, it is indicative of playing down to the competition, which is most likely indicative of a coaching issue. In this case, the coach was replaced and there was a marked improvement (debatable as to whether or not that will sustain in the future, but promising none the less). If you beat up on the lesser teams and lose to the better ones, that is indicative of a team that is stuck in the middle of the pack. better than bad, worse than good. That being said, there are so many factors involved (injuries, youth...etc...) that it is hard to judge two teams based on this. In either case, both teams can build on it in the future. the dog just thinks a team that beat the better competition over the year may have a slight edge in making a jump the next year...but, in the NFL, things seem to change yearly... I agree its indicative of where we're at, but thats not what he's saying. He's saying we didnt beat any good teams. And they have a better record of doing so. The Bears were a playoff team, and pretty good down the stretch. We whooped him. So his accusations aren't correct. And what I meant by my last remark was, out of the 2, its better to beat losing teams, than to be beat by losing teams. The cowboys got beat by a few scrubs last yr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 when life gives you lemons...... i'm not surprised you guys don't like this thread. it's very telling of how good the gints actually were. Honestly dude, I used this statistic in debates with my real life friends about how Coughlin doesn't get the team ready for the big games well enough. Coughlin is a good coach but he doesn't match up well with better, more aggressive coaching styles, like the Andy Reids and the Mike Mccarthys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 I agree its indicative of where we're at, but thats not what he's saying. He's saying we didnt beat any good teams. And they have a better record of doing so. The Bears were a playoff team, and pretty good down the stretch. We whooped him. So his accusations aren't correct. And what I meant by my last remark was, out of the 2, its better to beat losing teams, than to be beat by losing teams. The cowboys got beat by a few scrubs last yr. youre a lil mixed up. the dog, in much better words than mine, explained exactly what i meant. thanks dog. you understood part of it, but evidently not all. we got beat by a lot of scrubs last year. during a complete implosion mind you. meanwhile, the gints were beaten by every winning team they faced, save the bears in learning mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 Honestly dude, I used this statistic in debates with my real life friends about how Coughlin doesn't get the team ready for the big games well enough. Coughlin is a good coach but he doesn't match up well with better, more aggressive coaching styles, like the Andy Reids and the Mike Mccarthys. to me, tisch/mara are making a mistake here. just like jerry did when he didn't can wade's fat ass after '09. and then for coughlin to keep his staff intact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 youre a lil mixed up. the dog, in much better words than mine, explained exactly what i meant. thanks dog. you understood part of it, but evidently not all. we got beat by a lot of scrubs last year. during a complete implosion mind you. meanwhile, the gints were beaten by every winning team they faced, save the bears in learning mode. Im mixed up? Whats this "implosion" you speak of? Do you mean sucking before romo went down? lol.....Call it what you want, but you were losing to teams you shouldnt have lost to, and we were beating teams we should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 to me, tisch/mara are making a mistake here. just like jerry did when he didn't can wade's fat ass after '09. and then for coughlin to keep his staff intact? Yeah, it's completely inexcusable. They have a tendency to show a little TOO much loyalty. They kept Fassel and Reeves around for too long, too. I think it's partly because they are forever scarred by Parcells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 to me, tisch/mara are making a mistake here. just like jerry did when he didn't can wade's fat ass after '09. and then for coughlin to keep his staff intact? Coughlin won a Superbowl.....big difference between him and the Skipper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 youre a lil mixed up. the dog, in much better words than mine, explained exactly what i meant. thanks dog. you understood part of it, but evidently not all. we got beat by a lot of scrubs last year. during a complete implosion mind you. meanwhile, the gints were beaten by every winning team they faced, save the bears in learning mode. The Bears beat the Packers the week prior to the game in which we pummeled them. Doesn't matter though, last year was last year. I'm looking forward to a new season, if we have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 The Bears beat the Packers the week prior to the game in which we pummeled them. Doesn't matter though, last year was last year. I'm looking forward to a new season, if we have one. youre right. that doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lughead Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 puff out that chest and make it sound like your team did something last year. 6-10 or 10-6. we were in the same boat at year's end, were we not? No our boat had a winning record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 No our boat had a winning record yes it worked out better for the cowboys don't you think? we managed to get rid of the biggest problem on the team over the last few years. while the gints did just good enough to retain the master of the late season collapse and all of his crew. btw that winning record will get you a cup a coffee, assuming you have a buck to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lughead Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 yes it worked out better for the cowboys don't you think? we managed to get rid of the biggest problem on the team over the last few years. while the gints did just good enough to retain the master of the late season collapse and all of his crew. btw that winning record will get you a cup a coffee, assuming you have a buck to pay for it. We all know this is coughlins last year on his contract any way. oh and that 10-6 record we were supposed to be lucky to be 8-8 many where saying 6-10 was more likely. so as it was the Giants did better than most thought........ how were the Cowboys predicted to finish last year ? weren't they in the superbowl talk ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now